2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On August 1, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, who is the Plaintiff, entered into a lease contract with the lessor for the Defendant, lessee, D (the mother of the Plaintiff), and E (the birth of the Plaintiff), lease deposit amount of KRW 100,000,00, and the term of lease from August 1, 2016 to August 1, 2018 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”). From around that time, D and F reside in the instant house.

B. On October 26, 2018, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a content-certified mail to the effect that a lease contract concluded and implicitly renewed under the instant lease agreement is terminated pursuant to Article 6-2 of the Housing Lease Protection Act.

The content-certified mail sent to the defendant around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Since the Plaintiff, the lessee, who is the Plaintiff’s assertion, terminated the lease agreement explicitly renewed on the instant house, the lease agreement was lawfully terminated at the lapse of three months after the delivery of the content-certified mail indicating the intent of termination to the Defendant, who is the lessor.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to refund KRW 100,000,000 to the Plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. As seen earlier, the lessee becomes the Plaintiff, D, and E in the instant lease agreement of the party to the lease agreement.

In addition, according to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 1, and 2, D and Eul together resided in the Eul-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Jung-gu, Seoul. After the death of the deceased, the plaintiff filed a property division claim against Eul with Seoul Family Court 2005p16986, and on April 4, 2006 in the case, "H disposes of Eul-gu, Seoul and disposes of Eul-gu, and pays to the plaintiff, D and E an amount equivalent to 35% of the purchase price."